A California woman can proceed to trial after her case was unfairly dismissed when she was unable to appear in person — and despite her request to appear virtually, a New Jersey appeals court has ruled.
In a July 23 ruling, the Appellate Division found that a Bergen County judge misused his discretion and let his past frustrations with Zoom hearings “cloud” his judgement, ultimately leading to the wrongful dismissal of the case.
The plaintiff, Vanessa Brotherns, who is now a resident of California, initially filed a lawsuit in July 2021 against her former landlord, Magdi Mosaid, claiming he failed to return her $3,450 security deposit with interest.
The case was dismissed shortly after as the court believed the two parties had reached a settlement. However, in 2023, when Brotherns asked the court to enforce the settlement agreement, Mosaid denied ever agreeing to settle.
The judge determined at a September 2023 hearing that Mosaid’s account was “slightly more credible,” ruled that there was no binding agreement and denied Brotherns’ request to enforce the settlement.
Additionally, at the conclusion of the hearing, the judge determined that a trial date would be set and warned both parties not to request postponements or virtual appearances, stating, “I expect everyone to be here. If there is a settlement, under these circumstances, I want you in here. You both have appeared before me many, many times. I will make myself available even if it’s not on the record. I am not doing it by Zoom.”
He continued, “Do not come in and ask me for an adjournment. Do not write and ask me for an adjournment. If either one of you cannot make it, get somebody else in here.”
More: What does NJ Supreme Court ruling mean for Paterson’s ousted police chief?
The case was scheduled for trial on Oct. 31, 2023.
On Oct. 25, 2023, Brotherns’ attorney requested an adjournment or permission for her to virtually appear, citing that she had plans to travel to the New Jersey area from California between Nov. 10 and Nov. 18, 2023.
“Accordingly, we respectfully request an adjournment so that the matter could be heard during this time period … If the court is unable to accommodate an adjournment, we respectfully request that plaintiff be able to participate in the hearing via Zoom,” read the attorney’s letter. The judge declined this request.
Mosaid’s attorney consented to the delay, proposing a new date of Nov. 12, 2023, but did not consent to Brotherns’ virtual appearance.
The judge ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice, which means that it could not be refiled, after Brotherns failed to appear in person on the Oct. 31 trial date.
The state appeals court has since determined that the adjournment request should have been accommodated, writing, “We acknowledge the court’s commendable goal of trying to resolve this very old matter and do not dismiss the court’s frustration, if any, with the parties’ and counsels’ failure to follow its directions. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the record to suggest plaintiff’s, or defendant’s for that matter, requests for an adjournment were nefarious or ‘purposeful.'”
Additionally, while the Appellate Division ultimately upheld the judge’s Sept. 2023 decision regarding a settlement agreement, it determined that he went too far in dismissing the case without considering Brotherns’ request for a virtual appearance.
“Here, we conclude the trial court misused its discretion in refusing to consider plaintiff’s request to appear virtually,” reads the Appellate Division’s ruling. “We do not discount the trial court’s concerns regarding the court’s proceeding. However, the court allowed its unfortunate experiences with others to cloud its judgement regarding this matter, without due consideration for plaintiff’s request and the parties before it.”
The dismissal was reversed, and the case was sent back for trial.
Attorneys for Brotherns and Mosaid did not immediately return requests for comment.
This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: NJ tenant scores victory in case against landlord, court rules